But are there any willing to labour? Yes; many are labouring, and thousands in this land are prepared in spirit to join them; for every Christian has a longing to do something for God's kingdom on earth, and to employ usefully time and talents which he feels are running to waste. Why, then, with so much to do through a living agency, and with a great army of living agents yet unemployed, is there so little done? We reply again, from want of congregational organisation. Our congregations want order, method, arrangement. There is not yet a sufficiently clear apprehension of what their calling is in the world, or of the work given them to do; nor is there found that wise and authoritative congregational or church direction and government, which could at least suggest, if not assign, fitting work for each member, and a fitting member for each work. Hence little, comparatively, is accomplished. The most willing church-member gazes over a great city, and asks in despair, "What am I to do here?" And what would the bravest soldiers accomplish in the day of battle, if they asked the same question in vain? What would a thousand of our best workmen do in a large factory, if they entered it with willing hands, yet having no place or work assigned to them? And thus it is with many really self-denying Christians; because a practicable and definite field of labour is not pointed out, the necessary result is idleness—unwilling idleness; or self-organised and self-governed "associations," "committees," "societies," spring up to accomplish what the Christian society itself was designed to, and could accomplish in a much more efficient and orderly manner; or, as it more frequently happens, those energies and ardent feelings, and love of excitement even, which could have found sufficient scope for healthy exercise in such practical labours of faith and love as we have alluded to, are soon engrossed by merely speculative questions about "the church," or about "religion," and the stream which, had it been directed into a right channel, and to a right point, would have been made a power for immense good, soon rushes over the land a wide-spread, muddy, devastating flood, oozes out into stagnant marshes, full of miasma and fever, or evaporates into thin air!
THE CURE FOR SCHISM.
"Schisms" are not peculiar to the Church of the present day, nor are they "the result of Protestantism," as some allege, unless Protestantism is understood to represent that doctrine which is termed "the right of private judgment," but which might be described rather as the absolute necessity for each man to believe the truth for himself, and not to be satisfied that another man should see and believe it for him. This "doctrine," which is essential to the reception of any truth whatever, must necessarily open the way to error; just as the possession of reason, which is essential to a man's thinking at all, must, in every case, involve the risk of his thinking wrong.
But we know something of a Church founded by an apostle, presided over for a time by an apostle, which was full of schisms. This was the Church of Corinth. (See First Epistle to the Corinthians, first three chapters.)
These schisms were marked by differences of mind and judgment; and by "envying, strife, and divisions." Its "Protestantism" may, no doubt, have occasioned this.
But along with these divisions, and partly their cause, partly their effect, there was not only a warm attachment to particular ministers, but positive antagonism to others professing the same faith, and doing the same work. From the sameness of human nature in every age, we can quite understand how each party would defend their sectarianism. "We are of Apollos," some might have thus said. "We do not admire Peter. He is too much of a Jew for us; besides, he denied his Lord, and dissembled along with Barnabas at Antioch. We prefer our own minister even to Paul. He is a much more eloquent man; of a much more commanding figure and appearance; and how profound he is in his knowledge of the Scriptures!" "We are of Paul," others might have cried; "for he was chosen specially by Christ; and he has been honoured by Him more than all; and does not the Church of Corinth, moreover, owe its very existence to his preaching and labours? It is a shame to belong to any other!" "We cling to Peter," a third party might have said; "he lived with Christ when He was on earth, saw His miracles, heard His words, was treated after the resurrection with special love, and received from Him a special commission to feed His sheep. Apollos is no apostle; and as for Paul, he persecuted the Church, and confesses himself that he is not meet to be called an apostle. Apollos is good, Paul better, but Peter is best!" "We belong to neither," others could have boasted: "your divisions are so many, your differences so great, that we have retired from all your meetings in weariness; and each of us are of Christ only, and call no man master but Him; you should all join us, the Christians:"—thus making use of the very name of Christ to characterise a sect. Such were some of the schisms; and to the schismatics St Paul said, "Ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I of Apollos; are ye not carnal?"
The apostle desired to heal those schisms, and to bring the members of the Church into one mind. How did he endeavour to effect this?
Had he been a Papist, he might have said—"Why thus divided? Because you are not building on the one true foundation, which is Peter! Do you not understand the meaning of the name, Cephas, or the Rock, given to him, and intended to teach all Christians that the temple of the Church was to be built upon this rock, and this only; against which the gates of hell cannot prevail? Therefore, you who say, 'I am of Cephas,' are right; all others are schismatics." Never, apparently, had a man a better opportunity of revealing to the world this great secret of unity than St. Paul had, if such was his faith, especially when he compares the Church to a building, and speaks of a foundation-stone. "As a wise master-builder," he says, "I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon…. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is"—Cephas, or the rock? No! but "Jesus Christ." Not one word of Cephas as the centre of unity. Strange silence for a "Roman Catholic!"
Had Paul been a "High Churchman," viewing with deep awe the mystery of sacramental grace, we can understand how he would have spoken to the schismatic Corinthians of the vast importance of their submitting to absolute apostolic authority, and of "the awful powers with which God's ministers had been vested, of regenerating souls by the waters of baptism;" and how "such a clergy should command unqualified obedience." If these, or anything like these, were Paul's sentiments, and such as we are every day familiar with, it is not easy, to say the least of it, to account for his language to the Corinthians. What does he say of the exalted privilege of being able to baptize? "I thank God I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius:" strange words from a "High Churchman!" or a "High" Baptist! "I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other:" strange forgetfulness on such a supposed centre point of Church unity! "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:" strange idea of the relative importance of preaching and baptizing for a "High Churchman" to hold! And as to the "commanding authority" of the apostles, merely because they were apostles, apart from, the commanding authority of the eternal truth which they "commended" to the conscience and judgment of their hearers, Paul asks, "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos?" Methinks we hear some exclaim: "Oh, these men were the greatest, the most remarkable, the"—We will not, however, take up space by repeating the laudations with which some would exalt their authority, with the view of magnifying the mere official authority of the clergy. But what says the apostle himself? He says they were only "ministers by whom ye believed." It was not the minister who did good, but the truth which he ministered, and which he had received from another. It was not the man who sowed the seed, or the basket which held it, that gave the crop; but the living seed itself. Hence he adds: "So then neither is he that planteth anything, nor he that watereth!" What? Neither presbyter nor bishop, neither Paul nor Apollos, anything? Strange words, again we say, from a "High Churchman," whether Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or any other denomination; for "High Churchmen" are common to all Churches. Yet not strange from St Paul, who knew how true his words were, and that not man, but God, who gave the increase, was "everything."
What, then, was the apostle's method of curing schism, and of making men truly one who had been "divided?"